[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Tue Dec 21 23:16:24 GMT 2010


On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <teddy at teddy.ch> wrote:
> How would you
> handle existing routes, only containing the stop_positions
> (railway=tram_stop)? Removing stop positions and adding the platform/pole?

Leave them as they are. Or add platforms or highway=tram_stop nodes
and put them in the relation instead of the railway=tram-stop nodes.

> So you would deprecate railway=tram_stop as the stop position?

railway=tram_stop remains useful for rendering (it functions not as a
"stop-position" but as the centroid of the stop area)

> My proposal therefore would add both (stop
> position and platform) [to the relation].

On this we do not have agreement. I would add platforms (or
railway=tram_stop as a proxy for a platform). But not stop-positions.

> But what would you suggest to use as the stop_position for bus stops, if you
> would have to decide?

I would expect data users to infer it from the position of the bus
stop. Logically, you could mark a node for the stop_position between
the bus-stop and the way (or even on the way if the stop_position
blocks all traffic on the way). But this is pretty pointless - data
users will probably ignore them anyway, and infer it from the bus stop
location.

Richard



More information about the Talk-transit mailing list